Tom Ewing writes about serendipity using the pop charts as his framework and produces one of the best things I’ve read in a long while. Here are snippets which caught my attention, reproduced for no other reason. Think of it as highlighting for future thinkings.
For serendipity to happen you have to be able to give people what they don’t want– or don’t think they want– as well as what they do.
If you’re part of a crowd, all voting on one another’s suggestions, and your suggestions consistently don’t get anywhere, why stick around? In a world where the barriers to leaving a crowd are low, groups that stick together aren’t crowds, they’re communities, and communities tend to be terrific at recommendations but not so great at serendipity, because they’re geared to marginalize the conflict that it requires.
Contested public spaces are as likely to generate enmity as empathy but some of the point of participation is to stay aware of other strands of opinion, the other publics who use them. Contrast this to social networks, where the point of participation is to filter fellow participants into the worthwhile and the undesirable, creating a network of overlapping private spaces under the guise of a big public one.
How do we resolve the paradox of planning for serendipity?
The direction of progress online tends to be towards personalization and customization, whereas chasing serendipity requires a willingness to surrender control and drift through links and into new experiences.
the point of asking wasn’t to get at an answer but to enjoy the fireworks on the way